PEOPLE v. MILLER

NOTICE: The slip opinions posted here are
the latest electronic versions available from the Michigan Court
of Appeals. Updates are posted as received from the courts.
Consult the advance sheets and bound volumes of the official
reports for final revisions and proper pagination. Errata and
requests for correction of Michigan Court of Appeals opinions
should be submitted to: Deputy Reporter of Decisions, 800
Washington Square Building, Lansing, MI 48933; (517) 373-0714.

PEOPLE v. MILLER

October 19, 1999

No. 211105

Washtenaw Circuit Court

LC No. 97-008025 FH

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

V

KARL JAMES MILLER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: Bandstra, C.J., and Jansen and
Whitbeck, JJ.

BANDSTRA, C.J.

Defendant Karl James Miller was convicted of
carrying a concealed weapon, MCL 750.227(2); MSA 28.424(2), and
sentenced to thirty days in jail to be served on weekends, two
years probation, a $2,500 fine, and an additional sixty
days in jail to be served at the end of his probation, which may
be suspended by the trial court. He appeals as of right. We
affirm.

The facts of this case are not in dispute.
Defendant was stopped by an Ann Arbor police officer, who asked
defendant for his drivers license and registration.
Defendant produced an Ohio drivers license and told the
officer that the registration was in a briefcase in the trunk of
the car. When defendant opened the trunk, the officer noticed a
large number of items including what appeared to be a shotgun
case. When the officer asked defendant if the gun in the case was
the only gun in the car, defendant replied that there were a
number of guns, including handguns. The officer found two loaded
handguns in defendants briefcase, and two shotguns, an
assault rifle, and two unloaded handguns in the trunk. Defendant
told the officer that he had no permit to carry the guns; he was
charged and convicted under the concealed weapons statute.

Defendant contends that he is an Ohio resident
and notes that the Ohio statutory scheme provides a limited
defense to the offense of carrying a concealed weapon for
residents who carry weapons in motor vehicles. See Ohio Rev Code
Ann Sect. 2923.12(C)(4), 2923.16(C). [1]The Michigan statute provides that its concealed weapons
provisions do not apply to a person holding a valid license to
carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another
state. MCL 750.231a(1)(a); MSA 28.428(1)(1)(a). Defendant argues
that the Ohio statute constitutes a "de facto" license
for Ohio citizens, thus satisfying the requirements of the
Michigan statute. The question thus turns on the meaning of the
exception found in MCL 750.231a(1)(a); MSA 28.428(1)(1)(a).

Statutory interpretation is a question
of law reviewed de novo on appeal. People v Hammons,
210 Mich App 554, 557; 534 NW2d 183 (1995). The purpose
of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the
intent of the Legislature. People v Morris, 450
Mich 316, 326; 537 NW2d 842 (1995). If the language of
the statute is unambiguous, we enforce it as plainly
written.

The exception to criminal liability on which
defendant relies, MCL 750.231a(1)(a); MSA 28.428(1)(1)(a), says
that the concealed weapons provisions [2] do not apply
"[t]o a person holding a valid license to carry a
pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another
state . . ." (emphasis added). By its unambiguous terms,
this statute requires both that a valid license be held by a
person seeking its protection and that the license was issued by
a state. Neither of these conditions is satisfied here.
Apparently, the intent of the Legislature was to accept as a
satisfactory alternative the application, investigation, and
licensing scheme of some other state, in lieu of similar
procedures required by Michigan law. See MCL 28.426; MSA 28.93.
Without deciding whether a license issued without any such
procedures being followed would suffice, we hold that another
states legislative scheme that does not require any license
whatsoever being issued is insufficient to trigger the exclusion
of the Michigan statute.[3]

Defendants argument would have us read
into the statute a provision that it should not apply under
circumstances where a general exemption from concealed weapons
proscriptions would apply in some other state. Had the
Legislature intended that broader protection for out-of-state
residents found with weapons in Michigan, it could easily have
written the statute in this fashion. The Legislature did not take
that approach, and we are without authority to rewrite the
statute as defendant suggests.

Further, even if we were to accept
defendants contention that the Ohio statute constitutes a
"de facto" license, defendants argument would be
without merit for a second and independent reason. [4]
The Ohio statute only applies to the transportation of unloaded
firearms in a motor vehicle. Ohio Rev Code Ann
Sect. 2923.16(C). Thus, defendant has no argument that the
Ohio statute somehow licensed him to carry the two loaded
handguns that were found in his briefcase.[5]

Defendant argues that an interpretation of MCL
750.231a(1)(a); MSA 28.428(1)(1)(a) that does not entitle him to
use Ohios affirmative defense in this case would render the
statute void for vagueness. We will not consider this argument.
Defendant did not raise his constitutional challenge in the list
of questions presented. Further, nothing in defendants
statement of questions presented suggests that he is presenting a
constitutional challenge. He has

[3] Defendants reliance on Williams is
misplaced because there the defendant produced a valid pistol
license that had been issued by the state of Alabama. Williams,
supra at 569.

[4]We note that the Michigan statute only provides
a possible exemption for persons carrying "a pistol."
MCL 750.231a(1)(a); MSA 28.428(1)(1)(a). That exemption could not
apply to defendants carrying of the shotguns and assault
rifle. However, these weapons were apparently not at issue here,
as defendant was charged and convicted of a violation of MCL
750.227(2); MSA 28.424(2), which only applies to pistols.

[5] It is unclear from the record which of the handguns was
at issue when defendant was charged and convicted of the
concealed weapon offense.